Yeah, so...I'm not going to give them airtime. These losers just prove our point exactly. Fuck 'em, ignore, and let them whine in their little corner of stupid. We already know there are lots of men who hate us, ya know? Yawn!

Surly Amy(of the Skepchicks) is making A+ themed ceramic art/jewelry, as a fundraiser for the Secular Student Alliance and Skepticon later this year. Go check out her store, and raid her lovely collection :)

ETA: Just grabbed two of my faves of the A+ pendants...can't WAIT for them to arrive! I'm a bit soured on the RDF's Out Campaign red A symbol (especially considering Dawkins is being something of an asshat right now, securely blind in his privilege of being sexist), so chose not to get any of the A+ ones that look like that.

Thanks for posting this! I love my Surly-Ramics pendant (bought it from Amy in person at an American Atheist conference, had been planning to get one for a few years)!

Yes, Mr. Dawkins is a serious disappointment. In SO many cases, people like him continue to be rewarded even when they are dickishly sexist and clearly disrespect women. That so totally needs to stop. Sexists need to be social pariahs the same way as racists are now.

Completely agree, we need to have symbols/logos that don't incorporate his (I always thought it a bit anemic anyway).

I have been following the stories of abuse of women in the atheist movement for a while now. It is appalling and, of course, is an attempt to exclude women from the debate/movement.

I think I have always been Atheism plus, but never had a label for it. I tended to think of myself as "atheist and" (atheist and feminist and pro-choice and pro LBGT and concerned about social justice and many more...).

I have been reading about A+ and humanism (and any apparent differences). I have never been a fan of the term "humanism" (being a trained sociologist, who is allergic to the idea of human nature).

Can anyone tell me what they think are some of the key differences between A+ and humanism?

For me, the key difference between the two is that humanism doesn't necessarily explicitly recognize women as human. Believe it or not, in many spaces, we are not actually treated as if we are! It's ridiculously shocking, really, but it turns out that women still cannot safely assume we are included as either fully equal participants or beneficiaries of *any* "do-gooder" or human rights movement.

For "humanism" to work for women, we have to be included as humans first, and it turns out that quite simply, we're not, so it still must be explicitly stated that we are.

To women, I say: do NOT assume that you are included in any "good" cause either as a giver or a receiver unless it is explicit that you are. If the acknowledgment of you as a person is only implicit, it is very likely that you'll be cheated of time and money spent toward the cause, which knows that you believe you're a full partner while it tacitly considers you cattle.

In other words, it's business as usual: men cheat and lie to get what they want out of you. (Proof: the truth comes out when you speak up about being treated like the cattle they see you as. Cattle with energy, money, and time they can take from you.)

Justin, I know this isn't the answer you were looking for. But the BS about "atheism+ is unnecessary because we have humanism" is the same as "we don't need feminism because we have equalism (or humanism)." It is a clear attempt by men (yet again) to take over the conversation and tell us that we shouldn't have what WE need. Until humanism is explicitly feminist in its support of women, it's NOT ENOUGH.

What is so ridiculous about these men (and some women too) insisting we are already "covered" is that their obvious hostility toward women proves that we're not! That's aside from that fact that WE are the ones who get to say whether we feel a movement is supportive enough of us. Are they acting "humanistic" toward us? Not a bit.

I agree - some men in atheism are acting as though women being active in the movement in some way devalues their input.

That is garbage - it is not a zero sum game.

But I agree - the product of this purposeful action is to exclude/marginalise women (it may actually be the intention of those actions too, but that is hard to know). We have seen that in the retreat from the blogshere of Blag Hag and the continued abuse of other bloggers (I have read about this happening to Rebecca Watson and Surly Amy).

Intellectually, the involvement of women in the atheism movement is not a zero sum game. In fact it is the opposite: the wider the range of speakers on atheism the better we can get the message out and the wider our epistemological range (we can cover a wider range of topics and understand them more thoroughly than before).

However, if an individual woman is a better speaker, writer or thinker than the men, that can be seen to be a threat.

It is a threat to book sales, speaking appointments, followers on social media and social status (fame).

This may be one (although not necessarily stated or conscious) reason why women are being targeted, especially those with a high profile.

I should have checked in with this group before joining the Atheism+ discussion on the site forums... The anti-A+ stuff I read has left a lingering bad taste in my mouth, and this at a time when I had finally convinced myself that super-douche atheists were a dying breed. Not so, huh?